De Moor II:20: The Apocrypha, Part 2

The Roman Church did not canonize all these Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament:  for with us they reject The Prayer of Manasseh, books 3 and 4 of Esdras, book 3 of Maccabees.  But it determined in the Council of Trent, Session IV, Decree I, pages 31b, 32, that of the Apocryphal Books Six are to be held as Sacred and Canonical, namely, Tobit, Judith, the book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, books 1 and 2 of Maccabees, with the Additions on Esther, Jeremiah, and Daniel.

The Scope/Goal of the Papists in this was to demonstrate the Power of the Church over the Sacred Scripture, and to establish more firmly certain errors out of the Apocryphal Books.

In practice, says our AUTHOR, some Anabaptists and others subscribe, seeking out of these Books proving arguments in Theology:  and not only this, that the Anabaptists for the sake of proof promiscuously cite these Books with those of the Old and New Testaments, as HEINRICH ALTING’S observes, Theologia Elenctica nova, locus II, pages 35; but the passages sought out of the Apocryphal Books, which they say provide patronage for their errors, they dare to oppose to passages of Canonical Scripture asserting truer things:  see DORESLAER and AUSTRO-SYLVIUS, contra Anabaptistas, chapter VIII, § 2, pages 116, 117.  Nevertheless, HERMAN SCHIJN maintains that it is not to be imputed to the Mennonites that they accept the Canonical Authority of the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament, Historia Mennonitarum, Preface, * 2, compared with chapter VII, page 206.  Concerning the Authority of the Apocryphal Books against the Anabaptists SPANHEIM the Elder goes on at length, Disputationibus Anti-Anabaptisticis, theological Disputations part II, Disputations VI-XV, with the state of the controversy prudently set down before, so that it might be proven to what extent the Anabaptists are able to be accused here, Disputation VI, § 3, 4.

Objection 1:  The Apocryphal Books are cited in the New Testament.  Responses:  α.  The consequence of the Major is to be denied, that is, that divinity and Canonical authority follow upon a simple Citation:  since Paul also cites Gentile Poets.[1]  But the θεοπνευστία/ inspiration and divine authority of any books is confirmed when it is cited as Canonical for the sake of proof in the New Testament.  But, β.  I have already related above that nowhere in the New Testament is express mention or Citation of the Apocryphal Books made, whether general or specific, in any manner.  γ.  In the Passages which they allege neither a Citation nor ever a complete likeness exists between the New Testament and the Apocryphal Books, granting that some sort of agreement exists between them, as it will be evident to the one consulting those passages cited by our AUTHOR in his Compendio.  δ.  At the same time, to the one paying attention it will be demonstrated that here and there sentences of this sort are able to be shown to have been taken more from the Old Testament than from the Apocryphal Books:  for example,  Romans 2:11[2] altogether agrees with Deuteronomy 10:17 and 2 Chronicles 19:7:  Romans 11:34[3] has regard to Isaiah 40:13, 14, especially if you consult the Septuagint.[4]  1 Peter 1:24, 25[5] was manifestly sought out of Isaiah 40:6-8.

Objection 2:  This has been the determination of the Church for many ages, and most recently at the Council of Trent.

Responses:  α.  Neither the Authority of the Council of Trent, nor of the Council of Florence, held in the year 1431, inasmuch as they are Antichristian; and indeed the Council of Florence, called by Pope Eugene, against the will of the Baselians, so that he might break up the Council of Basel, which was about to act with respect to the general Reformation of the Church;[6] is able to move us in any way.  So much the less, because that Canon XXV, treating of the Canon of Sacred Books, appears to have been subjoined, perhaps by the Dominican Francisco Carranza,[7] in Summa Conciliorum, where it is found on page m. 460; since it is not found in the Collections of the Councils of Pierre Crabbe, Laurentius Surius, or the Dominicus Nicolini;[8] and those that cite this Canon are later than Carranza, who published in the year 1546, and, with this Canon inserted, perhaps wished to compose a prelude to the Council of Trent, at which that Summa of Carranza was promulgated, and at which the AUTHOR himself was present:  see RAINOLDS’ Censuram Librorum Apocryphorum, part I, prelection XLI; RIVET’S Isagogen ad Scripturam Sacram, chapter VII, § 41, opera, tome 2, page 886; GERHARD’S Confessionem Catholicam, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, pages 35, 36.

β.  But, that the Ancient Church already so determined, has been sufficiently demonstrated above to be false as far as the first four Centuries; neither is the contrary evinced, either, a.  from Citation of the Apocryphal Books; for a bare citation of a book does not imply its divinity, or its normative authority:  or from the title of Holy, Divine, or Canonical Writings given to them; for thus they were able to be called by the Fathers, because they treat of sacred and divine things, for which reason they are to be used holily, and because they pertain to the Canon of Books to be read in the Church, not to the Canon of θεοπνεύστων/ inspired Books.  For whatever was formerly read in the Church is not to be held as Canonical and θεοπνεύστῳ/inspired:  the Apocryphal Books were also read for the edification of the people, not for the confirmation of the authority of doctrines, as RUFFINUS in his Symbolo, and JEROME in his præfatione in Proverbia Salomonis, opera, tome 3, page 25; consult GERHARD’S Confessionem Catholicam, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, pages 27-33, who on pages 34 and 35 also particularly responds to the objected authority of AUGUSTINE, who also called the Apocryphal Books Canonical and reckoned them among the Hagiographa:  concerning which title of Hagiographa given to the Apocryphal Books see also pages 52, 53.  b.  That the Nicean Council had canonized the Apocryphal Books is mere conjecture, resting solely upon the deliverance of JEROME, who in his præfatione in Librum Judith, opera, tome 3, page 22, writes, that the Nicean Synod is read to have reckoned this Book in the number of Sacred Scriptures.  But the history and acts of the Nicean Council are opposed, which mention nothing of the sort, nor do the Fathers of that age, while Jerome was scarcely born at the time of that Council, whose testimony alone hence is suspect in this matter, neither does he speak concerning any other book but Judith.  But neither does Jerome affirm this on his own name and authority, but only mentions it recitatively, that the Nicean Synod is read to have done this.  The Title of Holy Scriptures is also able to be used in a broader sense:  see RAINOLDS’ Censuram Librorum Apocryphorum, part I, prelection XV; RIVET’S Isagogen ad Scripturam Sacram, chapter VII, § 17, 18, opera, tome 2, page 881; GERHARD’S Confessionem Catholicam, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, pages 23, 54-56; SPANHEIM’S Historiam Ecclesiasticam, Century IV, chapter XI, § 3, columns 909, 910.  c.  The Canon of the Third Council of Carthage, held in the year 397,[9] to which they appeal, as that in which those Apocryphal Books are numbered among the Canonical Books, which the Papists recognize as such to the present day, 1.  is of very suspect trustworthiness.  Its editions vary greatly.  Mention is made of Boniface in it, who appears to be the same as the one that undertook the Episcopate of the Roman Church in the year 418 or 419.  Whence learned men think that this Canon more truly pertains to the last Council of Carthage, held in the year 419.  2.  What if that Canon be genuine? why might not it be understood to speak of the Ecclesiastical Canon of Books to be Read?  3.  The Papists themselves will not readily grant the authority of this Council, when in Canon XXVI it enacts that the Bishop of the first seat, whoever he may be, is not to be called the Prince of Priests, or the Highest Priest:  compare RIVET’S Isagogen ad Scripturam Sacram, chapter VII, § 28-33, pages 884, 885; GERHARD’S Confessionem Catholicam, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, pages 16, 18, 33, 34; VAN MASTRICHT’S Bibliothecam Bremensem, classis VII, fascicule I, pages 32, 33.  d.  As far as Pope Innocent I is concerned,[10] unto whom Becanus[11] and other Papists appeal, as the one that in the beginning of the Fifth Century first fixed the Canon, see RIVET’S Isagogen ad Scripturam Sacram, chapter VII, § 13-17, opera, tome 2, pages 880, 881, compared with BINIUS’ Concilia generalia, tome I, part I, page 613, number 7.  e.  Concerning the Roman Council under Gelasius,[12] held in the year 494, in which the authentic Books, both Sacred and Ecclesiastical, are distinguished from the Apocryphal,[13] SPANHEIM reports in his Historia Ecclesiastica, Century V, chapter VIII, § 4, columns 1018, 1019.  f.  Thereafter the θεόπνευστος/inspired and Canonical authority of these Books was never really recognized in the Church; in which they were always read with the Præfationibus of JEROME prefixed, who pronounces them Apocryphal, and relegates them outside of the Canon:  while the same Books to the present day are read in the Vulgate Bible with the prologues of Jerome, the Papists stand ατοκατακρίτους/ self-condemned and worthy of ridicule, when they contend for the Canonical authority of some Apocryphal Books:  consult GERHARD VAN MASTRICHT’S Bibliothecam Bremensem, classis VII, fascicule I, pages 5, 30, 31; GERHARD’S Confessionem Catholicam, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, pages 14, 17.

It is worthy of note that in the Antwerp edition of the Plantin Polyglot Bible of Benedict Arius Montanus (1584), for the examination of which three Censors from the Academy of Leuven[14] were provided by Philip, King of Spain;[15] in the titles prefixed to the Old and New Testaments, these words may be read:  “To this edition are also added books written in Greek, which the Orthodox Church, following the Canon of the Hebrews, reckons among the Apocryphal Books.”  Now, the Council of Trent was at that time already seated publicly for a few years,[16] to the pronouncement of which the opinion of the Orthodox Church is here directly opposed.  Whence it happened, that, after many copies of that Bible were already sold with this inscription, the cited words in the remaining copies were deleted under the hand of the Papists:  see GERHARD VAN MASTRICHT’S Bibliothecam Bremensem, classis VII, fascicule I, page 42.

[Gregory the Great:]  who, in book XIX Moralium in Job, chapter XIII, opera, tome 2, column 502, has:  “Concerning which matter, we do not act inordinately, if from books, even if not canonical, nevertheless published for the edification of the Church, we should bring forth testimony:”  at which point he then relates some history from the First Book of Maccabees:  consult GERHARD’S Confessionem Catholicam, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, pages 16, 20.

[The Ordinary Gloss:]  which for many Centuries was and still is of great authority in the Papacy; but GERHARD relates most express words from its Præfatione to our subject matter, Confessione Catholica, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, pages 5, 52, 53.

[And similarly the Decree of Gratian:]  Our AUTHOR likely has regard to the first part of the Decree, Distinction XV, chapter III, in which these words of Gelasius are related:  “The Holy Roman Church, after those Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, which we regularly receive, also does not prohibit these to be received:  the Holy Nicean Synod, etc.;” Corpore Juris Canonici, columns 59, 60.  It then follows in columns 62 and 63:  “Moreover, what books in the Ecclesiastical offices might be read by some through the cycle of the year (inasmuch as the Apostolic Church does not condemn, but rather follows, that rite), we suppose are to be noted for the edification of the faithful.”  Where, together with the Canonical Books, are then reckoned Tobit and the Book of Maccabees, but not as Canonical, but which are read in the Church at a certain time; that is what these books have in common with the Homilies of the Fathers therein enumerated:  and additionally in the Notes on the word Moreover it is advised:  “From this point to the end, neither in the collection of Isidore, nor in any ancient Codex of the gathered materials of Gratian, are they found, etc.”

[And in all the chorus of the Learned:]  whose words are in GERHARD’S Confessione Catholica, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, pages 5, 52, 53.

Concerning the Apocryphal Books wont to be joined to the Old Testament by the Papists, read the disputation of PETRUS DINANT, especially against Huet and Petitdidier,[17] de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter V, § 74-86, pages 872-903.

[1] See Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12.

[2] Romans 2:11 bears some resemblance to Ecclesiasticus 35:12:  “Do not think to corrupt with gifts; for such he will not receive:  and trust not to unrighteous sacrifices; for the Lord is judge, and with him is no respect of persons.”

[3] Romans 11:34 bears some resemblance to Ecclesiasticus 42:21:  “He hath garnished the excellent works of his wisdom, and he is from everlasting to everlasting:  unto him may nothing be added, neither can he be diminished, and he hath no need of any counsellor.”

[4] Romans 11:34:  “For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor (τίς γὰρ ἔγνω νοῦν Κυρίου; ἢ τίς σύμβουλος αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο)?”  Isaiah 40:13:  “Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him (מִֽי־תִכֵּ֥ן אֶת־ר֖וּחַ יְהוָ֑ה וְאִ֥ישׁ עֲצָת֖וֹ יוֹדִיעֶֽנּוּ׃; τίς ἔγνω νοῦν κυρίου καὶ τίς αὐτοῦ σύμβουλος ἐγένετο ὃς συμβιβᾷ αὐτόν, in the Septuagint)?”

[5] 1 Peter 1:24, 25 bears some resemblance to Ecclesiasticus 14:18:  “As of the green leaves on a thick tree, some fall, and some grow; so is the generation of flesh and blood, one cometh to an end, and another is born.”

[6] The history of the Council of Florence is complicated.  In 1431, Pope Martin V, under pressure to reform the Church, called a Council at Basel; but he himself died before its opening.  The Council was inclined to exalt the authority of councils above that of the papacy, and to move toward the reformation of other abuses, and so Pope Eugene IV, Martin’s successor, tried to dissolve it.  Beginning in 1438, Pope Eugene attempted to move the Council, first to Ferrara, then to Florence, but the Baselians resisted for a time, even electing an Antipope.  The Council of Basel dissolved itself in 1439.  In the meantime, the Council of Florence was beginning and working toward reunion with the Eastern Churches in the face of the Ottoman threat.  The Council of Basel was disavowed, its decisions annulled, and its members excommunicated.  The Pope was again declared to be hold supreme authority, even over councils.

[7] Bartolomé Carranza (1503-1576) was a Spanish Dominican.  He served the Church as a priest, a teacher of theology at Valladolid, and eventually as Archbishop of Toledo.

[8] Beginning in 1539, Pierre Crabbe (1470-1552), a Franciscan theologian published a collection of the Councils from the beginning of the Church to his own day.  He was followed in this work by Laurentius Surius (1522-1578), a Carthusian; and Dominicus Nicolini, a Venetian printer.

[9] Canons of the Third Council of Carthage 16-20:  “It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these:  Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paralipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two Books of the Maccabees.  Of the New Testament:  four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same writer to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John.  So let the church over the sea be consulted to confirm this canon.  Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept.  Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon.  Because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church.”

[10] Innocent I served as Bishop of Rome from 401 to 417.

[11] Martinus Becanus (1563-1624) was a Flemish Jesuit priest and controversialist.  He taught theology at Würzburg, Mainz, and Vienna.

[12] Gelasius I served as Bishop of Rom from 492 to 496.

[13] The so-called Decretum Gelasianum is probably spurious and of later origin.

[14] The Old University of Leuven (then part of the Burgundian Netherlands) was a Roman Catholic institution; it opened in 1425 and closed in 1797.

[15] Philip II reigned as King of Spain from 1556 to 1598.

[16] The Council of Trent met from 1545 to 1563.

[17] Matthieu Petit-Didier (1659-1728) was a French Benedictine theologian, and a strong proponent of Papal infallibility.  He wrote Dissertationes historicas, criticas, chronologicas in Sacram Scripturam Veteris Testamenti.